Posts Tagged ‘ST’

When TRE republished this Ex-ST wimmin promoting ex-PM’s book? there was this response from one of the usual anti-PAP windbags. The cybernut said that the wanna-be ST Editor (a personal friend, he claims) told him that she wrote articles that the PAP was unhappy with. Right my dogs sometimes do things I’m unhappy about. But I don’t put them down because most of the time they are well behaved. If an ST journalist is too disobedient, think Cherian George.

Seriously what about the many times where the wanna-be Sith Lord praises the PAP?

Whatever, here’s the full piece. Note that “Temesak” is not a typo on my part.

patriot of Temesak:

CI, as usual, you talk SHIT…do you know the journalist you critic personally??? have you read their articles and comments with underlining comments that do NOT please the Powers that be???… Bertha, I know personally and on many an occasion she confides and says that her articles may rile the Powers that be but went right ahead with it…whatever your agenda…don’t talk shit when you are assuming as for Cherian I may not know him but I do respect him for his writings and guts and his wife Zu??? well she is doing pretty well with SCMP a very Independent newspaper unlike SHITTY TIMES…so, shut the F…k up if you are assuming

This guy seems to have forgotten all their brown-nosing, XXXX sucking articles about the PAP.

Maybe “patriot of Temesak” is a PAP mole that exposed himself? He’s one of the die-die mustvote PAP nutters who are related to the real cybernuts like tax-dodging “Oxygen” or “rabble rouser”.

This ex-ST tua kee is picking on Christians and Christianity (despite his name), or is ignorant on the views of Muslims on being gay (it’s haram); or has no balls because he’s afraid of a Jihadist attack if he talks about Muslims opposing the repeal of S377A: most likely the last methinks given the way ST behaves towards the bullies. Remember what George Yeo once infamously said, “Christians are less likely to riot”?

In 2009 I was a senior editor at The Straits Times when I asked one of the best reporters in the newsroom to find out what happened at Aware, because the respected women’s association had been taken over at its AGM by a mysterious group of new members. I remain proud of that story, because it uncovered how self-righteous people in our midst will take it upon themselves to force their beliefs and values on everyone else, and they will use all means possible.

The Straits Times broke the story that came to be dubbed The Aware Saga, and it was not easy. The paper was criticised for having “a homosexual agenda”. The writer who broke the story was attacked viciously for being gay. There were powerful people in and outside of Singapore Press Holdings who asked senior editors what the paper was up to in its unrelenting coverage and for exposing the Christians who took over Aware in that stealth operation. A senior government official called our coverage “breathless” and that seemed like a big hint that perhaps we had better pull back or stop.

Thankfully, I worked to a good editor, Han Fook Kwang, who was not Christian but was deeply offended that a group of people would use their religion to impose their values on a non-religious organisation operating in Singapore’s common secular space. He let me do my best with the story, and our reporters – straight, gay, Christian and non-Christian – pursued the story as best we could. Fook Kwang gave it the space and prominence it deserved and took some heat for that.

The original leadership of Aware eventually ousted the Christian usurpers in an extraordinary general meeting that was nothing short of historic for civil society in Singapore. And still, as the editor who assigned the story and for many of my colleagues, we did not know if we would end up being criticised for “going overboard”. Nobody came out to thump us on our backs or say Well Done. For some reason we remained a little fearful, and felt we had to keep our heads down. We had to be mindful that although we helped Aware return to its rightful leadership, we ought not risk offending the losing side because they were influential, well-organised, articulate and capable of giving even the powerful a fright.

For a long time afterwards, ST continued to be accused of having that “gay agenda”. If the paper ran stories about LGBT issues – or once, for saying in a story that Elton John had arrived with his husband and child – a letter would come, accusing ST of trying to “normalise” gay marriage and destroy the institution of marriage. Online there were people who tracked examples of the paper’s “gay agenda” to expose its motivations.

Nine years have passed since the Aware Saga. The current debate over 377A bears all the hallmarks of what happened in 2009. There is a loud and powerful call to keep this law. Because he spoke up for the wrong side, Tommy Koh has been called gay or “must have gay grandchildren”. Someone called me an asshole for criticising the Catholic Archbishop for the Church’s position on 377A. The Christians speak up most authoritatively, convinced of the need to safeguard family values and avoid “the slippery slope.” Some of the same people who figured in the stealthy takeover of Aware appear to be invested in current efforts to retain this bad law. They learnt nothing in 2009, they remain as steadfast, maybe even more so, in their desire to protect all of Singapore from sin and sinfulness as defined in their holy book.

I read ST’s editorial today and it appears to hope that Singapore’s courts will do the right thing in 2018 and remind us all, once again and clearly, that this is not a Christian country. This country provides religious people of all faiths so much freedom to promote their religions, explain their beliefs, woo new believers and speak up as strongly as they like against sin in their houses of worship. I am proud of that freedom in this country, which many of us take for granted. But today, as in 2009, this is not a Christian country and 377A is simply a wrong law to keep. Doing away with it will disappoint one side, but this gay sex debate will end. Keeping it means we remain on opposite sides and this “war” goes on.

Wannabe be Sith Lord who left the Dark Side in a huff when she didn’t become ST editor KPKBed that ministers didn’t give two ST columnists (her buddies) no respect, and implied that this showed that they also had no respect for the mob, us plebs:

If respected MSM columnists who are not unknown to G get this kind of opaque and befuddling response (in Ms Fu’s case) or a blistering lecture (in Mr Heng’s case), what more lesser mortals?

I think he got it about right. Why should ministers and civil servants have any respect for their well paid “running dogs”, propagandists who prostitute themselves day in day out for thirty pieces of silver? I don’t, and neither do many other ordinary S’poreans (many of whom are regular PAP voters). And ministers and civil servants shouldn’t either.

Ms Bertha Henson is deluded if she thinks local MSM journalists, columnists and editors are respected.

As my RI-standard mongrel says, “It’s an insult to us dogs calling them ‘dogs’. Dogs remain loyal to their masters, thru thick and thin.These are prostitutes, Judases, jackals or hyenas.”

To avoid any doubt, I’m not making any comment on the quality of the analysis written by the two running dogs columnists: I’ve not read the pieces. One of the joys of new media is that I can read really gd analysis about the situation here without having to read our constructive, nation-building columnists or analysts.

Sure, I may miss something interesting and insightful, but it’s not worth the wallowing in the BS to find these nuggets of gold.

And another thing: having sold their souls for 30 pieces of silver, how do I know that they have not prostituted (ie being intellectually dishonest) themselves as usual with these “new” views? Views that go against the grain of what they’ve written before, as friends who read their stuff tell me. That they still work for ST shows that at heart they are “running dogs” of the PAP govt.

Btw, Jeff Pang disagrees that the columnists and other MSM people should not be respected but with a friend like him (he admits that they are usually cowed into silence), they don’t need enemies:

MSM hardly speaks out against the government, understandably so. However, whenever they do, instead of understanding, they get unhelpful and offensive labeling like this.

I know what I’d do with a pet dog that bites me it feels like doing so without provocation: I put the dog down. That these two columnists have yet to be sacked, indicates that it’s all a “wayang”. They are juz acting a part.

The South China Morning Post has long been Hong Kong’s English-language paper of record. Alibaba has made it part of Beijing’s efforts to project soft power abroad. (NYT)

NYT Dealbook on Monday

This reminded me that SCMP’s newsroom is swarming with ex-ST newsroom staff. Wonder if they got employed because they have the experience doing for the PAP what Jack Ma wants SCMP to do for China: propaganda.

After all ST journalists are noted more for producing high quality propaganda for the PAP, then high high quality journalism. Sad.

It looks like ST and Today’s editors are trying to be more like Tharman. They already Indian although Warren has to use some black Kiwi polish on his skin and the other Fernandez needs to use plenty of bleach. Btw, the colour of their skins should tell one that despite the same family name, the two are not related.

What it does tell us is that the media is an Indian territory, like the law.

Seriously, they also auditioning to be ministers because the inability to crack good jokes seems a criteria to be a minister?

It does us no justice’ to be pro-Government, say Singapore’s mainstream media

In the age of social media, which gives the public more sources of news, there is no reason for Singapore’s mainstream media outlets to be partisan in its reporting, senior editors of Mediacorp and The Straits Times said on Friday (Mar 23).

Well what about the fact that these papers are operating in S’pore? This requires a licence renewed yearly.

The conventional wisdom has it that the PAP expects the media to, at the very least, brown nose the PAP govt especially the ministers. And nothing in Cheong Yip Seng’s,“OB Markers: My Straits Times Story” challenges this belief. Some even say the book reinforces the belief.

Btw, the book was only self-censored. Everyone in the PAP administration tot that someone else in the administration was reviewing the manuscript. So noone censored reviewed the manuscript. ST had planned a massive publicity campaign for the book. Only day one went to plan. The campaign was pulled on orders from higher up.

In response, Mediacorp’s editor-in-chief Walter Fernandez said: “Before the social media advent, there were far fewer brands of news sources. These were larger, more dominant and enjoyed a higher degree of trust.

“The significant fragmentation of the audience has left them with a significantly wider choice … We are judged now quite differently by the expectations of an audience that has moved on significantly, and we have to fight to earn their trust on a daily basis now.”

“In that sort of environment, against that sort of landscape, it does us no justice to want to be ‘pro-A’ or ‘pro-B’ in that sense,” Mr Fernandez added.

“Our fundamental premise is we have to provide accurate, contextual and timely information to audiences and allow them to make up their minds.

“Ultimately … (in) moments of crisis, we see people coming back to mainstream media. That speaks to the trust there is within our organisations and the trust Singaporeans hold up the two mainstream media companies with.”

Warren Fernandez

Said Mr Warren Fernandez, editor of The Straits Times: “Over the last five, 10 years we’ve tried extremely hard to be fair, balanced and objective because we see our role as not trying to play up one party or the other, but to give our readers as much information as they can to make decisions for themselves.

“If we were biased, we would be clearly called out on social media. It would backfire and affect our credibility, so we wouldn’t be inclined to do that. I don’t think it does anybody any service if we tried to … it would be a disservice to our readers, a disservice to our journalists, and ultimately I think a disservice to Singapore.”

(Alternative title “What if editor was also censor? And justifying censorship”)

Writers are “engineers of human souls”Joseph Stalin once told Soviet writers. And I’m sure our Harry would agree with him on that when it came to journalists. After all both wanted the media to be part of their constructive, nation-building endeavours.

So I can’t stop laughing when I read what Warren Fernandez (Btw, TMG’s Bertha Henson* coveted his job, something to bear in mind when reading her criticisms of ST and SPH. Where was her critical voice when she was angling for the post of ST’s editor? She was no Cherian George.) told the parliamentary Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods.

The ST editor said

that an “important distinction” needed to be made between the “exercising of judgment by editors, and censorship or self-censorship”.

“Before we publish anything, we would want to assure ourselves that the content we are putting out is not libelous, unfair or biased … it’s us exercising responsibility,” he said.

“We recognise it’s a duty, and we make judgment calls and we take constant feedback from many sources – newsmakers, readers, organisations … that’s the critical role a responsible media organisation would play.

“If you’re going to have a meaningful exchange and debate, you need informed decisions. It’s not a matter of every view being put out there, and have a slugfest, and expect sweetness and light to emerge.”

Well the above distinction between the role of an editor and a censor does not exist or is meaningless when the editor is chosen by a govt determined that the media be constructive, nation-building. Read Cheong Yip Seng’s, “OB Markers: My Straits Times Story” on how he became ST editor: Harry tot he “was ready” is my impression of what he was telling us. Also read how subsequent editors were choosen.

*Secret Squirrel, Morocco Mole, and ST and SPH insiders say she quit ST the day when it was announced that Warren was returning to ST to be ST’s editor. So all her criticism could be sour grapes rather than the repentance of a wannabe Seth Lord.

Constructive, nation-building ST (and other constructive, nation-building SPH, and constructive, nation-building MediaCorp) journalists must be pretty happy that in 2017 journalists globally have achieved the biggest gain in credibility relative to other “groups”: see chart below. Err somhow I don’t think this applies here because I just read this On media, politics and stranger thingshttps://www.facebook.com/notes/cherian-george/on-media-politics-and-stranger-things/10154934466551612/

Taz the headline of a very good article from a publication I usually trash as “The Idiots — S’pore”. Do read it because it’s very good: http://www.theindependent.sg/fake-news-just-make-mainstream-media-more-credible/

But as the writer

Tan Bah Bah is a former senior leader writer with The Straits Times …

I still find the piece a bit rich coming from a once senior insider even though he’s correct. I mean coming from an ex-ST tua kee this is hilarious:

because you are comfortable only with sycophantic group-thinkers.

Wasn’t the ST editorial team nothing but sycophantic group-thinkers who got their jobs (and retained them) because they bought into Harry’s vision of the media: constructive (as defined by him), nation-building (also as defined by him) and cheerleading?

But Bah Bah is not the only one biting the hand that once fed him well. Late last yr, I tot of the ST team in exile in SCMP (including Yaacob’s sis who was ST’s deputy editor) in HK, and retired SPH editors Bertha Henson (It’s alleged she tot she could be ST’s editor) and Balji (a discreditable report about his ethics linked inside Feeling free to bite hand that once fed him) when I read the u/m dissing of FB by a former senior employee.

Henson, Balji, Bah Bah and the ST team in exile in SCMP (including Yaacob’s sis who was ST’s deputy editor) in HK were once like this FB guy, enablers of a juggernaut. When they were regularly paid 30 pieces of silver serious sums of money, they never doubted that they were working for truth, justice, the S’pore way and Harry. But when the money stopped, they all had Damasceneconversions, or so it seems. Humbug?

From NYT’s Dealbook

“I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works.”

That’s what Chamath Palihapitiya, the former Facebook executive turned venture capitalist said at a Stanford Graduate School of Business talk last month. Mr. Palihapitiya, who was a vice president of growth at the tech juggernaut, recommended that users take a “hard break” from social media.

The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works. No civil discourse. No cooperation. Misinformation. Mistruth. And it’s not an American problem. This is not about Russian ads. This is a global problem. So we are in a really bad state of affairs right now, in my opinion.

Wow what an admission that ST and SPH in general are not producing “reliable and credible political news as well as thoughtful and insightful commentaries on Singapore politics and policy affairs”.

Interesting this admission because many S’poreans (self included), not juz the anti-PAP ang moh tua kees and their fellow cybernuts, think that the nation-building and constructive SPH group and MediaCorp are just part of the propoganda department of the PAP administration.

So producing “reliable and credible political news as well as thoughtful and insightful commentaries on Singapore politics and policy affairs” remains only a goal i.e. an aspiration like multi-racialim in S’pore.

(Oh I forgot that having someone whose i/c says “Indian” as the “Malay” president is multiracism at work, a bit like “Calling a deer a horse”?)

Whatever, it looks as though Warren Fernandez accepts that S’pore’s 151st ranking in the World Press Freedom Index is about right.

A report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reflected Singapore being in the 151st place this year. In 2016, Singapore was in the 154th rank.

You know the PAP administration is rattled when a PAP minister castigates the constructive, nation-building media for reporting the problems that MRT breakdowns are causing commuters. He wants the media to report how Great SMRT is.

He only said that because we have the internet and social media to keep honest his paper and other media. I’m old enough to remember when local media coverage at times didn’t match everyday experience.

Now to some constructive advice to the minister and his minions on how to make sure S’poreans KPKB less when the trains don’t run on time.

Behavioural economists tell us we are wired to care more about things we pay than things we get for free. This tendency is called the “endowment effect”. Paying for something represents a loss of money, so we care more and get more upset over things we pay for than over things (identical or otherwise) we can get for free*.

So when an MRT delay occurs, shut the KPKBing down by making the trip free.

It has the additional benefit of showing Khaw, LTA, SMRT and Temask how much revenue is lost when trains don’t run on time.

*Take “WordPress”. Because I use the free version, I don’t grumble about things that suck.

The anti-PAP internet brigade are KPKBing about censorship of or self-censorship by our MSM, ever since a well-funded pro-PAP click-bait site reported that ST and CNA had changed their initial reports on what the Minister for Pets said, taking out the comment: “You are not going to get angels in power all the time”.

The assumption of the PAPpy site, cybernuts and the saner anti-PAPies is that the Minister for Pets had really said, “You are not going to get angels in power all the time”.

Err maybe the CNA and ST reporters were practising what “The Idiots” — S’pore (TISG as it prefers to be known as) and Jafri Basron** are really good at: faking the news? And got caught out juz like “The Indians — S’pore”** and Basron?

The front page of ST, a few days ago, was dedicated to the late Mr S R Nathan.

The front page report however carried two serious errors (see below) and what’s worst, these errors seemed meant to take credit away from another former president, Mr Ong Teng Cheong (the “People’s president” of the cybernuts and other anti-PAPpies). ST later corrected the errors in its online version of the report. But did not apologise.

These errors could really be “honest mistakes” made by the reporter, sub editor and the supervising editor working under time constraints (Shome mishtake, shurely? Ed). Though it beggars belief that S’porean-born and educated journalists don’t know their recent history given that the official narrative is taught in schools.

So could all three be FTs? Ignorant of our recent history, hence the mistakes. There are persistent allegations that the SPH group, and ST, in particular have great difficulty in getting true blue S’poreans to be journalists. They have to recruit M’sian Chinese and Indians and hope for the best.

Anyway, given that it was clear that Nathan was dying, there would have been plenty of time to write the stuff and store it, so time pressure could not be the reason for the mistakes. Only ignorance of our recent history is a valid excuse, and only if the writer and checkers were FTs.

Alternatively, maybe there are anti-PAP subversives at work, trying to put the constructive, nation-building ST and its perceived, pay master, the PAP administration in the dog-house of the public opinion of the swung voters. If so they succeeded.. ISD should investigate, and arrests made,

Last week when I read about SPH’s dismal results*, I remembered a recent incident of how a member of ST’s secret sales team pleaded “breaking rice bowl” to dissuade a cancellation of ST subscription and delivery.

When my 91-yr old mum found out from the newspaper delivery man that she had to pay $6 more for ST, she asked me to cancel the service. I was more than happy because years ago I had suggested stopping subscribing to ST.

I called the vendor and said “Stop from next month”. He annoyed me by telling me that the Chinese newspaper was subsidised (*0 cents and not $1). I said we never took the Chinese paper.

The next day my mum told me that the vendor had called her and asked her not to cancel. He said she was breaking his rice bowl. But as she refused to pay $36, he agreed to deliver only from Mondays to Fridays, to keep the price down.

My mum also told me that he had denied her assertion that delivering newspapers was a lucrative business (She had heard that when the previous vendor retired, he got $750,000 in coffee money from the new vendor).

I told her, the new guy most probably had to borrow serious money to finance the franchise transfer. And that he needed every subscription.

Whatever, while TOC and TRE are asking for donations, and the Indian is prostituting itself in the search for eyeballs, SPH like Old Man River keeps on rolling. And laughing all the way to the bank.

———————————————–

*Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) reported a 22 per cent drop in its net profit for the second quarter on Tuesday (Apr 12).

SPH, which owns the Straits Times newspaper, earned S$54.1 million in the three months ending Feb 29, down from S$69.6 million in the same period a year ago.

Singapore’s largest publisher of newspapers and magazines also saw revenue for the quarter fall 4.1 per cent to S$264.2 million, hurt by a 6 per cent drop in media operating revenue to S$190.7 million.

Its property arm fared better, with operating revenue rising just under 1 per cent to S$61.1 million.

When I read the following in an FT article about the relationship between journalists and the , rulers, I couldn’t help thinking about Lee Wei Ling’s KPKBing that she was censored by ST.

When President Xi Jinping paid a New Year’s visit to China Central Television in February, the welcoming banner on the wall ignited a controversy that has roiled Chinese politics for weeks.

“Our family name is the Party,” the banner read, in a display of fealty that many Chinese felt was excessive. Mr Xi took things a step further, saying that China’s media “must love the party, protect the party and closely align themselves with the party leadership in thought, politics and action”.

Guess this is how the PAP expects SPH and MediaCorp publications and channels to behave.

After all, this is what Ms Lee posted on Facebook: It was a love-hate relationship between me and my three consequetive editors. there may already been a space for my article, then the editor does not like what i wrote, and i refuse to have the relevant points deleted and the entire article is then dropped. when what each of the three editors objected to was so consistent, i decided they must have been commanded to edit certain issues out, and they are to timid to disobey, and too embarassed by their timidness to tell me the truth.

And this is the headline from the SCMP Cheong Yip Seng tells how Lee Kuan Yew, who saw the press as subordinate to the nation’s needs, made sure that only he and his government could set the agenda for Singapore

(In case anyone has juz woken up from a 50-year sleep, Cheong Yip Seng is a former editor-in-chief of Singapore Press Holdings’ English and Malay Newspapers Division. He is an editorial adviser for SCMP Publishers.

Then there is this from the FT.

Looks like the urge to report the Truth (whatever that means) than propoganda never took root among journalists in our constructive, nation-building media. And Yes of course blame it on Harry.

In summarry, he blamed new media (and the constructive, nation-building media: the PAPpy friendly ST etc reported the Middle Ground’s story) for blowing up the bullying incident and not telling the truth. The reporting was “deliberate and irresponsible”: this included supposedly “balanced” online and mainstream media who felt right to reproduce the articles choosing to feature sensationalised headlines that gave a wrong impression of the facts.

The problem (i.e. flaw) with his analysis is simple. Until he gave his side of the story, three months after the event, there was only silence from him and the MoE. So how could there be “balance” or “truth” (whatever this is)? Now he and the MOE may have reasonable and legtimate reasons for silence if the decision to keep quiet wasn’t simply an honest mistake**.

Whatever, how can he now blame media (new and constructive, nation-building) of irresponsible behaviour when he was unwilling or unable to say anything at the time the video went viral? If anyone was “deliberate and irresponsible” (I assume he really meant “deliberately irresponsible”) , it was the silence of theprincipal and perhaps MOE**.

Having been freed from the constraints of his job**, he could (and should) have simply told his side of the story without name-calling or labelling: just give the facts as he saw them. But no, he had to indulge in name-calling and labelling like Amos Yee. And he’s an educated man who held a position of trust and responsibility, not a spoiled kid, whose mother thinks he’s “fantastic”.

As he’s going for further studies, one can only hope that the course includes handling the media in an age of 24/7 news coverage. new media and social media. Pigs will fly first.

Seriously MoE must remind officers not to talk cock because talking cock reflects badly on the eduction service. It must also update its manual on the handling media queries. viral videos etc in an age of 24/7 news coverage. new media and social media. Silence is no longer the default option.

Finally, I can’t stop laughing at this comment by Bertna Henson the editor of TMG NOW he talks….three months later. After a deafening silence, a deadening rant. As always, shoot the messenger, after declining to talk to them. And messengers must always deliver “good news” to be considered “responsible””.

Really people who once lived in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones. She was once a general (paper stormtropper) on the Death Star that is ST. ST was during her time (and still is) very good at shooting nessengers of news that the PAP administration rather not hear.

From 1 Jan 2016, I will be leaving the education service. I am hoping to pursue further studies. Yes, I am doing well. smile emoticon And no, before you ask, I made this decision some time before the “bullying incident” in my school. MOE and the public service is more reasonable and far kinder than most give them credit for.

To assure those of you who are still curious about the follow up to the incident, I thought I would share a picture of the 3 boys involved. The circle time in the picture was taken on the FIRST DAY after all of them returned to school. The “bully” apologised in person and in writing to both victims and to the class. Both victims forgave him and they were friends again within 2 hours. Consequences were meted out to the boy according to our school rules in private and ALL THE PARENTS INVOLVED were satisfied with the actions of the school. The boy will have to face more serious punishment under the law.

More hearteningly, in November, the 3 boys, together with their classmates, initiated and planned their own service learning project during the school’s open house. They baked brownies and made drinks for visitors to showcase the work of our student-run Hideout Cafe. They told me they wanted to make restoration for the bad reputation they had brought to the school. I am very proud of them.

Many ppl who know the truth of the events in my school have asked me why I did not respond more actively to the various reports on the Internet when the incident happened. My answer – I did not want to feed the ongoing media frenzy and help viral irresponsible articles that were being put out by my comments. Sadly, this included supposedly “balanced” online and mainstream media who felt right to reproduce the articles choosing to feature sensationalised headlines that gave a wrong impression of the facts.

Make no mistake – these were deliberate and irresponsible decisions made by the media. For example, an online news website that purports to be a place for “moderate speech and agreeable disagreement” posted an article headlined “the school was aware of the bullying 5 months before the incident”. A close reading of the report itself would have revealed that a single complaint was made to the school and the teacher involved had done the correct thing by warning the aggressor. She was not aware that the bullying resumed a few days later.

The same website chose not to emphasise comments by the mum herself that she appreciated the work that the school had done with her child and the improvements that she had seen in the child over the last 3 years. They ellided over the fact that A FULL WEEKEND separated the incident from the time it was posted on the Internet, during which neither victim mentioned anything to the school nor their parents. The media chose not to mention that both VICTIMS had written to me that they felt sorry for their friend and hoped to see everyone move on. They did not clarify that the online video was NOT posted by any of my school’s students (because we teach them that the correct thing to do if they care for their friends is to raise it to the teachers) but a school leaver from another school who posted it on a gaming site at 9am on a school day. There was no mention that one of the victim’s mum had gone down to the police station ON HER OWN 2 weeks later to withdraw the police report because she felt satisfied with the school’s handling of the incident and that it was a mistake to have gone to the police in the first place.

At the same time, some of the online reports seem to suggest that after one or two meetings with one of the victims in question, the journalist somehow understood and COULD SPEAK FOR the boy’s psychological state, better than the school. By reducing the children to spokespeople for “the broader problem of bullying in schools”, the reports cared nothing for them as people. They mention nothing about how one of the boys dreams of being a top chef, another speaks to his mum in sign language, the last has improved significantly in his reading despite suffering from dyslexia, and all three find EBS difficult. And all this which I know as a Principal is nothing compared to what my teachers know of them, working daily for 9+ hours each day with the boys over the last 3 years and sharing with them the heartache and struggles of their growth.

It is not difficult to see how these biased reports might have fed some of the extreme online vitriol. These included many threats by netizens such as “if i see the boy, I will bash his skull in”, “let me give him a taste of his own medicine.” Instead of trusting the school and the police to investigate and take the right actions, many suggested taking things into their own hands. There were false accusations of gang connections and that the boy was a compulsive bully. Unhappily, there were also derisory comments about the school by people who did not know the first thing about Shuqun Secondary. This was unfair to the 1200 other students, their parents, the committed staff, and the alumni and stakeholders of the school.

As a teachable moment following the incident, my teachers conducted a bully-free lesson with all the students. This is material which we repeat every year as part of our bully-free week where we teach our students about the different forms of bullying including physical, verbal and psycho-social. In her reflection, one of my students mentioned the way that adults were behaving online, that was causing my students being afraid to go out in public in their uniforms after school and to participate in social media. She ended her reflection by asking ” how is this not bullying?” I had no answer for her.

(The same media website compared this case with another case of bullying in a prestigious all-girls’ school that was recently resolved in court and suggested that there was a difference between physical and verbal/psychosocial bullying. We teach our students that these are all forms of bullying that cause suffering in others, and that it does not matter what was the intent behind the action but the act itself).

1) To the media friends especially (some of whom are my relatives, ex-classmates and former students), I would like to urge you to take greater care in your reporting. For each irresponsible journalist and dubious media website, I have met many more considered and enlightened ones, some of whom reported on the many achievements and good stories from my students and staff in the past. While I understand the pressure to attract more views and comments in this age of social media through increasingly sensational reporting, you too have a DUTY OF CARE to your subjects, especially children. You have the power to report the full truth and shape opinion, not just pander to the lowest denominator in the hopes of representing yourself as the mouthpiece of the public. Be mindful of the innocent parties that you might be unintentionally hurting, and the feelings of hatred you might be stoking online. In some cases, it can spill over to real cases of vigilantism, as several cases of adults taking the law into their own hands against children or teenagers have shown in 2015. Sometimes the best thing we can do for the people we care about is to stay quiet and do the deep work to support and help them learn and grow.

2) To the wider and largely well meaning public, be mindful of what u “like” or comment on the Internet. Be aware that what u see or read online often does not constitute the whole truth, and choosing even to click on links (without needing to share) can help to viral these falsehoods. Trust the institutions that we have put in place to do the right things; that is the mark of a civil society.

And if we speak about allowing our children to learn from their mistakes in education, to give the academically weaker students a chance to catch up and succeed, the same grace and patience should be extended to our students when teaching them good character. We can do better as adults to be kinder to one another in real life and on the Internet. Remember, OUR CHILDREN ARE WATCHING AND LEARNING.

3) To my fellow colleagues in Shuqun and elsewhere in the teaching fraternity, those in social services and the police who work daily with these kids – strive on! I have had the privilege of meeting many of you in my years of service. Some have given up higher paying jobs. Others, like me, have studied and taught in “top” schools but chose to work in schools like Shuqun because you want to go to the places of greatest need and believe in the potential of every child of Singapore, not just some. And we live the mission every day, and don’t just talk or write about it.

To encourage you, let me share something that another parent sent me, during those difficult days of September. He was the father of the boy that was hit by one of the victims, in another video that surfaced subsequently. This time the student who had taken the video did the right thing, and brought it to my attention before it went viral so that we could address the matter with those involved. When I met the father, he had complete trust in the school’s handling of the matter. More importantly, because of the close relationship he had with his son, he was confident that his boy would have raised the matter to him if it had affected him. 2 days later, when the video became viral, it was HE who sent me a message of encouragement through my school counsellor – “Tell Mr Chia to take care. I am very impressed by his dedication to the students.”

Thank you Mr Hong , and the many other parents and partners, for renewing our faith and for supporting our teachers as they do the hard work of believing in and helping your children.

Happy New Year.

Chia Hai Siang

P.S. Pls SHARE if you think this will encourage a teacher or a parent.

**MoE officers like all civil servants are not authorised to talk to the media unless expressly authorised.

She was the deputy editor of ST and earlier this yr joined the SCMP in HK. Great timing. Alibaba will pay HK$2.06bn (US$266m; £175m) for SCMP.

Alibaba Buying South China Morning Post, Aiming to Influence Media The Chinese Internet giant said the deal was fueled by a desire to improve China’s image and offer an alternative to the biased lens of Western news outlets.

Given her role* in ST as a cheerleader, class-monitor and enforcer for the PAP administration in ST, she’ll fit in very well under the new regime in HK. Her husband, Cherian George, a vocal social activist here (calling for a free press here is his obsession) but now lecturing on media (because of his obsession) in a HK uni, must be a happy man.

His wife can put her well-honed skills to good use in the service of Alibaba to improve China’s image and offer an alternative to the biased lens of Western news outlets.

The couple must be oprning the champers.

——-

*She was a major-general in the Imperial Stormtroop Paper division and a padawan Sith Lord.

Below is a piece that appeareded, when the problem at SGH first surfaced. on the Facebook wall of an ex-ST tua kee. I’ll not mention any names because I’m not a FB friend. It came to me via a third party.

I seriously dislike the ST page 1 story. It’s written in such a way as to put SGH in the best light possible like how it is not easy to spot pattern and alarm bells ringing etc…And how SGH is “confident” that transmission has stopped (when it doesn’t know how it happened and doesn’t seem to have got all patients in the two wards? What class wards btw?) And why is it using multi-vials when WHO discourages the practice? Also, Minister is not just “deeply concerned” (the quote is “gravely” according to ST in another part of the paper) but also DISAPPOINTED (which is missing in the story).

I am going to say this outright. Don’t read ST, much better to read TODAY. It has interviews with other doctors and even lawyers. Nobody, however, seems to have got hold of the PEOPLE affected.

Plus, ST says 21 patients when everybody else says 22..

I think the criticism speaks more the writer than about ST. As I said in previous post, even a pariah dog don’t bite the hand that once fed it. There is such a thing as loyalty.

SINGAPORE bonds were the second-worst performer in Asia in the first seven months of this year, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has said.

Losses were largest in Indonesia, down 17.8 per cent, followed by Singapore, where bonds were down 7.8 per cent in the January-to-July period, said the latest report by ADB’s Asia Bond Monitor.

Market returns on Asian bonds have fallen sharply so far this year with the iBoxx Pan-Asian Index falling 3.5 per cent in US dollars in unhedged terms, it said yesterday.

Only bonds in the Philippines and China recorded gains – 7.5 per cent and 3.1 per cent respectively.

Reported in BT 27 September 2013, but not in ST or Today. Why? ST and Today only report the “right” news? Note that ST regularly talks of the benefits of investing in S$ bonds, and bonds generally.

BTW, here’s shumething SunT didn’t tell us about the Finnish education system: Angry Birds creator Rovio has brought Angry Birds Playground, a schools initiative devised with the University of Helsinki in Finland, into the kindergarten classroom of children, aimed at six-year-olds.

With the initiative already in use in Finland, Rovio has now entered into an agreement with schools in China.

“With small children, the Finnish approach to education is very much play-orientated,” says Sanna Lukander, vice president of book publishing at Rovio Entertainment.

“These characters and their world seemed to inspire children. You can’t not think about how you might motivate children to do more than play.”

Readers cannot have missed that ST and Today were trumpeting for weeks, that S’pore’s Ng Ser Miang had a good chance to be in the International Olympic Committee (IOC). president. He was not only a contender but one of the two favourites. As the volume got shriller and the headlines more bombastic and bigger fonts were used, I turned to the int’l media like the BBC and the Guardian. They said that the German, Bach, was the favourite. If he didn’t get the job, it would be an upset.

I didn’t get upset at our papers’ “kampung” boy stance: to be expected from “provincial” papers. Ever read the Cardiff or Belfast Times? Or even the NY or London papers on city matters? Besides ang mohs are always dismissive of Asians.

What has got me writing this diatribe is that it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the papers must have been wrong to label Ng a favourite. Ng tied in the first round with the Taiwanese guy our papers called a long shot. Ng squeaked thru on a re-vote. Then “Mr Ng received six votes and came in a distant third, behind German former Olympian Thomas Bach, who won the elections with 49 votes, and Puerto Rican banker Richard Carrion who received 29 votes …”.

Come on, if he was a “hot” favourite, how come so bad a result? He should have come in a decent second, or a close third. Our papers didn’t think much of the banker’s chances, rating him below Ng. He got thru the first round easily, unlike Ng, and came in a credible, if distant, second.

Both papers moved on to whisper about conspiracy theories. Today muttered including a belief making the rounds that Tokyo’s successful bid to stage the 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games was a factor.

With next year’s Youth Olympics in Nanjing, the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang and 2019 Rugby World Cup in Japan, there is a perception that the IOC was reluctant to give too much power to Asia. This doesn’t wash because Ng didn’t get many Asian votes, did he? One reporter also said that Asians don’t support Asians.

Gee so how come we weren’t told these facts earlier? ST and Today only found these up after Ng lost? Whatever it is, they must have got the facts wrong to come up with the assertion that Ng was a favourite.

Clearly, the voting showed that Ng was no favourite: in fact going by the numbers, he along with the Taiwanese guy were long shots. And that he never had a base of Asian supporters, let alone supporters. As WSJ wrote: Ng appeared to struggle to find company. On Sunday night, as Bach was finishing dinner with International Skating Union president Ottavio Cinquanta of Italy and their spouses, Ng was sharing a drink with reporters. The next day Bach had lunch with IOC member Ung Chang.

The two papers got it wrong: Ng was not a favourite, as claimed; and should admit to their getting their facts wrong, rather than throw smoke in order to cover-up the mistake of getting the wrong facts, leading to the wrong conclusion.

I once suggested that P Ravi and PM use this method (used successfully by a secret police force) to evaluate the quality of the data they get from their sources. Maybe ST and Today should use the method for their sports news coverage.

Let me be very clear, I’m not saying anything derogatory about Ng. But I’m saying that our papers, based on the evidence of the votes cast, did not get their facts “right” about Ng being a favourite alongside Bach. Were they beating the DRUMS rather than reporting the “right” facts?

This leads me to a most serious issue.

Recently, a retired Imperial Stormtrooper general (Keyboard corps) criticised the role of the local mainstream media in the loss of trust between the people and the govt. Wow! Bit like a few German generals and soldiers trying to assassinate Hitler, when the Germans were losing the war that they started? OK maybe she had a Paul-like conversion after she got retired?

Well, if we can’t even rely on the media to get the facts “right” on a simple sports story involving a S’porean, how can we trust the media when it reports on news that touches on the govt: remember the local media prides itself on being “constructive” and “nation-building”, and I have yet to hear of a senior editor being less than 150% pro-govt. Example, the media only waited for the govt’s response to Dinesh family’s legal suit before reporting the case. TOC and Bertha Henson (aforesaid keyboard general) had, to their credit, already reported the details of the family’s suit days earlier.

Fee-fi-fo-fum; I smell the blood of reporters and analysts that were bullish on reits. Be they alive or be they dead, I’ll grind their bones to make my bread.

ST has finally given up promoting reits (something I’ve been bitching about recently here and here), reporting: MAYBANK Kim Eng Research has gone against the long-prevailing view and downgraded Singapore’s red-hot real estate investment trust (Reit) sector amid a period of increasing price volatility.

Reits have come under heavy selling pressure the past fortnight amid fears the golden days of low interest rates may be ending.

The FTSE ST Reit Index, which tracks the sector, dropped 1.68 per cent yesterday and is down 8.2 per cent since May 22, when the United States Federal Reserve’s chairman raised the possibility of ending its money-printing.

Gee, less than a month and two bullish stories, ST is now reporting bearish news on reits. Even when I waz an equities salesman, I didn’t change my views so fast. ST Money Desk practicing to be salespersons.

But before rushing into reits, think. The prices of reits were helped by institutional equity investors* buying them for the yield. Now those who chased yields in the equity markets may switch into cyclicals and defensives, if they think the yield party is over. If so buying into reits may face a stampede out of reits, and then relative underperformance.

—

*Remember, bond investors don’t buy reits. They stick to bonds, moving to junkier bonds for yield. When cautious, they sell the junk and buy US govt bonds.

It’s not nice to have to wonder about phone calls in the night or an email to demand that a post be deleted. And it’s not nice to have to second guess what the G (or which god in which department) thinks about this post or that and that particular god-person’s threshold of “sensitivity’’.

Sharp-eyed Siow Kum Hong spotted this from Bertha Henson’s piece http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg/?p=4858. Read it as it contains lots of rational criticisms of the new MDA regulations, unlike most of the noise and rubbish coming from netizens’ behinds.

In case, you didn’t know, she was a high ranking, keyboard-wielding Imperial storm trooper dedicated to keeping S’poreans in the dark, before she retired after having repented. She was Dark enough to have been considered to be one of the front runners to be ST’s editor.

But let’s not hold it against her. There are not enough Jedi for us to be choosy.

On 23 May, Japan’s stock market fell by about 7%. “It was no different in Singapore, where the benchmark Straits Times Index sank 61.2 points or 1.8 per cent to 3,393.17, its worst one-day plunge in percentage terms since its 2.2 per cent reverse on May 7 last year” (“Markets tumble amid US, China fears”: ST headline. Didn’t have the balls to tell us, reits here were off about 5%*. They have since recovered slightly.

Fee-fi-fo-fum; I smell the blood of reporters and analysts. Be they alive or be they dead, I’ll grind their bones to make my bread.

Update after first publishing: Juz read in FT that while the Topix index is down 10%, reits there down 1%. Seems investors want to own real assets, given that Japan wants to raise inflation.

Update, Update: However, there are three good reasons why stock markets, a few blips aside, will continue to grow for some time: central banks are scared; there is lots of money waiting to be invested; and returns on all other assets are low … Strapped to these three rockets, the market can still soar. Of course, Spain could yet go bust or China grind to a halt. There could be a natural disaster, an act of terrorism or war. History tells us a bust is waiting down the track, but while the world economy recovers and governments and central banks maintain their pledge to keep printing money, we should expect prices to rise.
Phillip Inman from Guardian

So Germany beat Greece, and are into the Euro semis, which reminded me that even footie facts are misrepresented by the nation-building, constructive ST to promote government’s FT is “betterest” policy (See below. To be fair, ST published the rebuttal. Balls-up or subversion? Or someone with a conscience?). Is nothing sacred? What next? Footie scores get misreported? More likely is that goals scored and saves made attributed to players that fit ST’s agenda of nation-building, constructivism.

I am exaggerating? Look at an ST report of WofflesGate: [in relation to the incident in September 2005,] . . . Wu got Mr Kuan, then 76, to tell police that he was the driver of a car speeding at 95kmh on Lornie Road. Mr Kuan is said to have lied again about a speeding offence committed at 9.45am on Nov 10, 2006. The car was then travelling at 91kmh on Adam Road.

The speed limit in both instances was 70kmh and involved Wu’s car. Court papers did not state who the actual driver was.

The court heard that a notice was sent to Wu to reveal the identity of the driver. Concerned that he would accumulate demerit points were he to accept liability for the speeding offences, he roped in Mr Kuan, then a maintenance technician in his clinic. Now 83 years old, Mr Kuan was also described as a close family friend of the doctor. He has not been charged.

The report makes it clear implicitly that Woolly Wally was the driver by stating that hr was concerned about getting demeit points. Yet we now know that both the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Law minister said that investigations were ongoing, as to who the driver actually was; and that the case has not been concluded.

Funnily, ST has not retracted its story. Nor have the authorities asked for a retraction. These are four mysteries that need to be explained to convince S’poreans that the rich are not different.

———

Read the u/m in ST Forum about two weeks ago.

Go for local football talent

CONTRARY to what the report (‘Talent mining in the sports world’; May 25) implies, Germany does not have an official programme recruiting foreign-born footballers.

Klose moved to Germany at age seven, while Podolski did so at two. Both are therefore home-grown German players.

The only non-native player recruited by the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) who can be considered home-grown is Daniel Bennett, who came here as a toddler.

Many Singaporeans rightfully question the ‘Singaporean-ness’ of foreign sports talent, something that even Bennett himself is concerned about.

He was quoted two years ago in the Singapore Armed Forces Football Club official website as saying: ‘I am more Singaporean than many of the other foreign players who took (up) citizenship more recently, as I grew up here and it’s my home.’

Apparently concerned by the excessive use of imported players contravening the spirit of the game, football’s world governing body Fifa tried to introduce regulations in 2008 to restrict such usage.

Unfortunately, the FAS remains stubbornly persistent with its push to recruit more foreigners. It claims foreign sports talent plug the gaps in its youth development programme (‘Change of heart by NSAs’; May 28).

Our national football administrators should find answers to why, after almost two decades of S-League football where would-be Lions play with and against foreign players weekly, and years of employing foreign technical directors, the FAS is still struggling to develop quality international-level talent.

It is impossible to prove, but perhaps native and home-grown players strive harder for their country.

When I saw the photo (B7 of today’s ST) that accompanied the headline “Students pick up journalism skills at ST camp”, I did a double take.

There was a huge photo of a young person crouching low, almost kneeling (OK, OK I exaggerate, but only a bit. I tot, “Wow, what a revealation abt what happens at ST”. Err wonder if those allegations abt “sucking or licking bums and sexual organs” are true”?

Well turns out he was crouching to take a photo. Then I tot, bit like posture needed to promote nation-building, and constructive criticism of the government.

BTW, a gd source for gossip in SPH tells me that SPH is finding it difficult to recruit young, smart S’poreans as journalists despite a starting pay of above $3,000 a month. They are too ashamed to work for SPH. So SPH is recruiting young, smart M’sian Chinese and Indians instead. Why not go for PRCs and Aryan FTs? Apparently,they don’t blend into the local scene so easily. Given the anti-FT mood, they could be the subject of the news, rather than the reporting of it.

“A possible major catalyst for SIAE [SIA Engg] is if parent company SIA decides to divest its substantial ownership in the company as it did Singapore Terminal Airport Services (SATS) earlier this year. SIA currently owns an overwhelming 80.6% stake in SIAE,” says Kin Eng Securities.

My tots in mid June 2009:

SIA does in specie share dividend of SIA Engg saying:

“Distributing shares through an in specie dividend will unlock shareholder value by giving SIA shareholders direct ownership of SIA Engg at no cost to them …The proposed distribution will allow SIA to concentrate on its airline business, something advised by MM Lee in 2004 … SIA Engg will be able to independently pursue opportunities to aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul businesses. The Proposal will improve trading liquidity of SIA Engg shares, potentially enhancing value.”

ST Aerospace is the “Largest aircraft MRO company by commercial airframe man-hours” and has “Strategic partnership with RSAF”

Rights issue with Temasek taking up its entitlement and prepared to subscribe for shares that other shareholders don’t want.

Remember you first heard it here. But based on the companies’ past performance, SIA Engg should only buy ST Aerospace, if the price paid reflected Aeo’s lower margins. SIA Engg’s margins are consistently better than those of Aero. EG In financial yr ending Dec 2008, Aero’s turnover was S$1.9b with PBIT of S$272m, while SIA Engg turnover was S$1.1b but PBIT of S$301m.

But what price another national champion? And financial engineering by Temasek?”

(GIL) surely must be worth further analysis as a special situation. Published NTA is 35 cents a share as at June while it is now trading at 25 cents (up 2 cents).

But I’ll give detailed analysis a miss as there will be a change of manager. The present manager is part of the defunct Babcock & Brown group (in fact GIL was once Babcock & Brown Global Infrastructure Fund). The directors want to appoint as manager a ST Gp company, while a shareholder with about 20% wants a relatively unknown Australian fund manager.

So better to wait to see who becomes the manager (there is EGM later in November). And in the meantime, I will try to find out more abt both managers.

For a preview of what I will be writing about below are some pieces I did in mid June for two weeks for a project that did not take off. They are in chronological order.

Winning whatever the price of oil

Last week, it was announced that PetroChina (subject to Chinese regulatory approvals) would buy from Keppel its entire stake of 46% in SPC for S$6.25 a share.

Immediately one thought of 2003, when Keppel sold a 28% in SPC to Hong Kong-based (but Indonesian owned) Kapital Asia for S$1.50 a share, and said it was considering divesting its entire stake.

In 2004 the price of oil took off and Keppel decided to keep the refiner to expand its oil and gas production in SE Asia. Could Keppel be repeating its mistake of selling SPC shares, just before the oil market takes off? It could.

But Keppel shareholders (especially Temsek) should not complain. In the announcement of the deal, it was said “PetroChina and Keppel also plan to explore opportunities in the offshore oil industry and in other areas of mutual benefit as such opportunities become available”.

Things like this are usually to be ignored as fluff. Maybe not in this case.

PetroChina is one of China Inc’s two flagship oil companies, tasked with developing oil and gas resources globally to meet China’s energy needs. The Chinese have been active recently making oil-for-loan deals with national oil companies of Brazil, Russia and Kazakhstan, all very good for the likes of PetroChina.

Keppel’s off-shore rig business, is only one of two world-class companies in Singapore Inc’s local portfolio. Should the value of SPC explode upwards, then Keppel has, at the very least, the goodwill of PetroChina when it bids to build rigs for projects where PetroChina has an interest.

And should the price of oil collapse, Keppel and its shareholders will have S$1.47 billion in the bank to fund the rig business.

And if anyone thinks that it is a no-brainer to buy SPC because PetroChina said it could serve as a platform for future transactions, suggesting it might try to use SPC to make takeovers that it would be blocked from making directly — think again.

There would still be concerns of takeovers by Chinese state-run firms, done directly or indirectly, through a Singaporean subsidiary.

Managers turn swashbucklers? Can pigs fly?

Short of plans to buy assets, NOL does not need the S$1.4b. NOL, which has S$400m in cash reserves, would have almost less than 2% net debt. (45% of equity at the end of 1Q) against container sector average between 60 and 65.

NOL intends to use about S$700m to repay debt, the remainder for investments and working capital.

But the prognosis for the entire shipping industry for 2009 and early 2010 remain gloomy, so likewise does NOL operational gearing.

Buying into NOL (its shares have risen from 0.85 in early March to 1.68 yesterday) is to believe that NOL’s management can use its great financial gearing into something tangible. EG buying ship at bargain prices from highly leveraged shippers in distress, and shipyards.

And increasingly its gearing again in the process.

Imagine going into the next cycle with cheaply acquired ships and a gearing of 45%. Wow Bam. This is an unproven thesis. NOL is one of the most conservative container lines and has taken a higher proportion of its ships out of service than other lines to tackle over-capacity.

Can cautious managers turn into swashbuckling asset buyers? There are the Greeks and Chinese buccaneers out there too on the prowl for ships.

Writer has some NOL shares in his CPF portfolio.

Looking a gift horse in the mouth or Why new SAT shareholders should begrumpy

On May 14, SIA announced that it was going to distribute to its shareholders its 81% stake in SATS by way of a dividend in specie. Since then share price is up 5%. This comes after SATS has become cash poor.

In January 2009, SATS launched a takeover bid for its Temask stable-mate SFI. According to the takeover documents, the pro-forma balance sheet as at September 2008 would have shown that the net cash position of the SATS (including SFI) group deteriorated to minus S$21 from S$528. In particular, cash in fixed deposits would have fallen from S$573 million to S$64 million.

But SATS needs cash because “SATS is committed to growing its 2 core businesses of airport and food services”.

It could borrow big-time, pro forma net gearing is 0.04% from (0.35)%. But in Singapore, where debt is a dirty word in GLCs (NOL comes to mind), a rights issue is reasonably probable.

Temasek as the new controlling shareholder of SATS has $356 million from its sale of SFI shares to fund any rights issue. But do other new SATS shareholders have the cash?

Finally, looks like MM Lee gets his way. In 2004, he said SIA should divest itself of SATS and SIAEC. SIA’s management demurred.

Will SAEC be divested despite SIA mgt saying last night that the SAEC holding is strategic? Stay tuned.

Backward into the Future

November 8, 2009 [OK I did get this wrong, but it could still happen]

SIA announces that it is proposing a dividend in specie to its shareholders of the Company’s entire shareholding in SIA Engg.

“Distributing shares through an in specie dividend will unlock shareholder value by giving SIA shareholders direct ownership of SIA Engg at no cost to them.”

“The proposed distribution will allow SIA to concentrate on its airline business,”something advised by MM Lee in 2004.

“SIA Engg will be able to independently pursue opportunities to aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul businesses. The Proposal will improve trading liquidity of SIA Engg shares, potentially enhancing value.”

ST Aerospace is the “Largest aircraft MRO company by commercial airframe man-hours” and has “Strategic partnership with RSAF”

Rights issue with Temasek taking up its entitlement and prepared to subscribe for shares that other shareholders don’t want.

Remember you first heard it here. But based on the companies’ past performance, SIA Engg should only buy ST Aerospace, if the price paid reflected Aeo’s lower margins. SIA Engg’s margins are consistently better than those of Aero. EG In financial yr ending Dec 2008, Aero’s turnover was S$1.9b with PBIT of S$272m, while SIA Engg turnover was S$1.1b but PBIT of S$301m.

But what price another national champion? And financial engineering by Temasek?

Temasek’s recently revised investment priorities R SGX Listcos

Yes this was Temasek week, and we will end the week by looking to see which non-Temasek SGX-listcos fit into its recently revised investment priorities:

poised to capitalise on the growth of middle class consumer credit in Asia, and

with plausible competitive advantages, following its reinvestment in Olam.

What about the following?

Bayan – manager and developer resorts, hotels and spas in the Asia Pacific.

Creative – remember its MP3 player predated iPOD and Apple paid it damages for breaching its patents. All it needs is a bit more Zen meditation and it could have a mega hit on its hands.

Eu Yan San – has reached the limits of what it can do with its resources in Chinese medicine. Needs outside capital, but family squabbles prevail. But Temasek is different.

Raffles Education – big in Chinese education (and indirectly in property). In a bit of bother now but controlling shareholder and manager has a track record.

Bayan, Creative and RE are run by home-grown and-bred entrepreneurs. What better way of encouraging the growth of entrepreneurs with global ambitions, then by supporting these three companies? We will keep you posted as we trawl through SGX listcos.

This continuing series will help us fill the gaps on those days when we wake up late or have nothing more interesting to say.

Whither the markets?

Fund managers, analysts, traders and media pundits are struggling to contain their confusion at what global equity markets have been doing since March.

The conventional view is that this is a bear market rally. There will be a double-dip recession – a so called “W” recovery, where there is a steep fall, followed by a steep recovery and then another fall before another recovery finally appears which becomes more sustained.

Pundits pont out that, while not widely reported in the regular news, the bond markets had a mini crash in May. There’s talk of the ending of the multi-decade bull market in bonds, what with all the debt that governments have to raise.

My views on whether we are in bear market rally are just as irrelevant as anybody’s else.

But I heard something interesting on the FT (my second favourite newspaper) website a few weeks ago.

The strategist, from CLSA, belived that we are in the midst of a bear market rally. Nothing new here. But unlike other pundits, he said this rally could run for another two years before collapsing. He cited what happened after the dotcom bubble bust in 2000/ 2001.

He said, with hindsight, it was clear that the recovery from 2003 to 2007 was a bear market rally. Bottom line: A bull run or bear market rally can only be predicted in hindsight. Seating tight and doing nothing is not an option for a fund manager unless he is Warren Buffett.

Another reason to remain invested in Singapore mkt?

Could the plans to celebrate big-time the 50th anniversary of self-rule be a signal that the PM wants to calls a GE in the first half of next yr?

Remember that 50 years of self-independence coincides with 50 years of PAP rule, something that the celebrations are sure to link.

Have a good time tonite. And the next insight will be on tues morning.

Tempting the shorts

“China’s property market has been bouncing back over the last several weeks,” reports a FT publication. “Statistics from the China Real Estate Index System showed that residential property sales in 30 large cities increased by 11.42% April from March and transaction prices for new residential developments were up 3% week on week to the highest level this year between May 11 to 17.”

So it was not surprising that the CEO of CapitaLand over the weekend implicitly reminded investors that CapitaLand is NOT a Singapore property play but a China (property) play, “In 2008, our China operations accounted for about 26% of total group assets and contributed approximately 45% of the group’s earnings”.

The target is for China to make up 40 or 45% of assets in the next few years and for more than 45% of earnings. (Incidentally, if China assets are at 45%, then China earnings should be at 90%)

Is he reminding himself how big a bet CapitaLand is putting in China?

CapitaLand has just secured a S$5b three-year credit line with Bank of China and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. What this means is that CapitaLand is gearing up just after completing a rights issue a few months back. It had reduced its net debt from S$5.6b to S$4.6b, a 18% improvement. Its net debt to equity had fallen to 0.32 from 0.47.

Now, making an assumption on drawdown by end FY2009, it will have net debt of S$9.6b and net debt to equity of 0.67. All very good if the Chinese property continues its bull run

But if it implodes (note that China super bull, Jim Rogers, is avoiding recommending property to investors: in 2008 he was negative about Chinese property) and CapitaLand has not sold assets before the downturn: another rights issue?

Hedge funds who are negative on China property could do worse than start to build up short positions in CapitaLand.

The perils of buying NTA

The share price of United Engineers is falling after its high of S$2.37 on 29 May. This illustrates that buying a counter at a deep discount to its NTA can be problematic, if there is no catalyst to unlock value. To recap. As part of an asset rationalising swap, Straits Trading and its controlling privately-owned shareholder swapped assets.

12% of UE was sold to Tecity at around S$1.52 a share, and 7% of WBL Corp was sold to ST as part of the asset swap. ST ended up with 19% of WBL. BTW WBL has another 10% of UE.

There was speculation that Tecity had immediate designs on UE. UE’s shares are at a deep discount to its published NTA of S$3.43. They remembered Tecity’s bid for ST which ended with Tecity paying S$6.70 for assets (revalued) worth S$6.52 a share. What is forgotten is that Tecity busy coping with the consequences of having spent S$1.1bn to own 82% of ST; is not likely to want to reward other UE shareholders at Tecity’s expense.

Assuming it bids at published NTA, it would have to spend S$679m. And if, the other major shareholder, GE Life starts a bidding war, the cost could escalate, like in ST. In early 2008, there were estimates that UE’s NTA could be S$6. And if it did bid at NTA or more, any time soon, ST’s minority shareholders would rightly cry foul.

TeCity’s founder, the deceased Tan Chin Tuan, would spin in his grave hearing his heirs being accused of being unfair to minorities.

Incidentally the cost of selling UE’s assets are likely to be very high.

Maybe future UE annual reports should give an estimate of the costs of selling these assets to unlock the published NTA. And maybe advisers to the independent directors of a target company; and the acquirer should subtract the costs of liquidating the assets when toying with NTA values in their reports.

If this had been done in ST, Tecity could have got away with a lower bid.

What price growth?

Bharti’s proposed acquisition of a 49% stake in South African MTN would give SingTel (at 30% Bhart’s biggest shareholder) exposure to markets in Africa and the Middle East, where there are a lot more mobile phones than people. Australia and Singapore (its biggest markets) are the opposite.

But the complex deal involving cash and a cross-shareholding by MTN into Bharti would mean that SingTel’s share of Bharti would drop to 19%. SingTel has indicated that it wants to rebuild its stake back up to 30%, if the deal goes through. At current prices, this means coming up with about US$5.3bn or S$7.7bn.

It has net debt of S$6.5bn and net gearing of 24%. But raising net debt to S$14.2bn and net gearing to 52% is not an option in a GLC, though it could make sense in any other telco that has stable underlying cashflow. Qwest (albeit it is now trying to reduce debt) has a ratio of 110%. (more debt than equity).

So if the Bharti/ MTN deal goes through, a SingTel rights issue will be necessary.

As to how dilutive this will be — S$7.7bn works out to only Singapore 48 cents a share, or 16% of its market capitalisation based on yesterday’s closing price of S$2.95.

Not too dilutive for exposure to fast-growing markets where there are more people than phones.

Long short pair

DBS Research’s economist issued a report suggesting Asia is on its way to an economic recovery because the region’s production is rebounding in a V-shaped fashion. “Asia is perched on a recovery path at the moment … we do not expect a W-shaped path in the near term.”

DBS Vickers Securities raised its 12-month target price for the stock of Singapore Exchange (SGX) to S$9.10 – the highest now among the target prices of 20 analysts polled by Bloomberg.

But does how does SGX look in the medium term vis-a-vis its rival, HKSE? Remember HK would benefit from a V-shaped recovery too.

Traditionally, an important measure of the success an exchange vis-a-vis its peers is the new IPOs it attracts According to Dealogic, some US$1.6bn has been raised this year through eight listings in Hong Kong. And the outlook is improving By contrast, Singapore raised US$12.5m from 3 IPOs all second board (sorry “Catalyst”) IPOs: with gloom pervasive, “2009 may be the worst year in memory for the IPO market”.

Funnily this just when FT reports that “Asia is expecting a strong pick-up in market listings in the second half of this year thanks to a steady flow of flotations in Hong Kong and amid growing expectations that Beijing could soon allow domestic listings for the first time in almost a year.”. It quoted Dealogic’s Ken Poon, “Given the strong liquidity flows into the region, I would expect 2009 IPO volumes will exceed 2008 … As Asian IPO volumes in 2008 was US$23bn while in the first half of 2009, it’s less than US$2bn … That would mean a really surprising second half. Sentiment is strong and liquidity is there to support new issues.”

And Hong Kong can look forward in 2010 to the AIA listing, the $5bn-plus IPO of AIG’s Asian life insurance unit This IPO is set to be the world’s largest IPO since 2007, when incidentally thanks to the Chinese, more money was raised in HK than in New York. So shouldn’t hedgies be thinking of shorting SGX, and buying HKSE? Even though SGX’s forecasted PE is below 20x, while that of HKSE is closer to 30x.

SIA’s Investment Prowess

If SIA were not such a great airline operationally and financially, I should be worried about its: “still keeping an eye out for possible acquisitions in China and India, despite the current economic downturn”.

The last time it went on a buying spree between 1999 – 2001, it showed that investing in airlines was not a core competency.

In April 2000, SIA purchased a 25% stake in Air New Zealand for 426 million New Zealand dollars (352 million Singapore dollars), or NZ$3 a share. Yes it was the usual “strategic” investment. SIA also participated in a subsequent rights issue, paying an additional S$51 million, to avoid diluting its 25% stake. The original purchase plus rights amounted to S$403 million.

SIA in 2001 tried to invest more, failing only because the NZ government was dilatory in approving an increase in its stake in Air NZ. Phew!

When 100% owned subsidiary Ansett failed in late 2001, pulling AirNZ down with it, SIA’s unapproved offer of NZ$1.31 a share was still on the table.

And in late 1999, a cash-strapped Richard Branson sold a 49% stake in his airline, Virgin Atlantic, to SIA for £600m (US$960m), a very good price for Mr Branson. SIA still has the stake and the much talked about synergies have been quietly forgotten.

There were also rumours of rows between Mr Branson and SIA on Branson’s plans to muscle-in on SIA’s lucrative UK to Oz route. So has the idea of selling the stake, what with valuations of airlines falling.

But let’s be fair. The then CEO of SIA has moved on to become chairman of OCBC, not bringing with him his deal-making enthusiasm: for that OCBC shareholders should be happy.

And recently SIA kept its nerve and refused to up its offer for a stake in China Eastern Airlines, which is now in financil difficulties. So maybe SIA is a more disciplined investor.

But being disciplined has its perils. Ask PSA which refused to outbid the Arabs for a stake in a choice HK terminal, only to have play catch-up on a second-rate terminal.

Things might not be as they seem

Consoling yrself that higher petrol prices are the price to pay for a V-shape recovery? The Western and Chinese economies are on their way to recovery, and rising oil and commodity prices are foreshadowing this recovery.. Think again because this NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/business/economy/11commodity.html?ref=business reports that growing evidence suggests that a sizable portion of this buying has been to build stockpiles in China, and may not be sustainable.

Core competency of new Temasek CEO

Could the new CEO of Temasek finally sort out the strangeness of Temasek having

two world class competing offshore rig builders in two separate listed listcos; two property listcos — one big, one tiny

two MRO aerospace cos – one listed and the other part of a listed conglomerate?

Surely the national interest could be served by merging these and creating national champs. Yes, these have discussed inside before, but nothing happened. Gossip says that the bosse at the helms of TLCs are protective of their turfs: bit like Chinese lawlords throughout history. It always took a great leader to unify China over and over again.

But this is unlikely to be his priority. Neither is going into natural resources.

When he was hired to be CFO of Melbourne-based miner BHP in 1999, the “Big Australian” had lost its way. In the 1990s, it did a series of ill-conceived acquisitions and failed projects, amid historically low commodity prices.

The former investment banker was one half of an American duo. The other was CEO Paul Anderson, who came from Duke Energy.

In their first two years, BHP got rid of 2,000 jobs and A$6.9bn worth of assets. They then merged BHP with Billiton, createding the world’s biggest miner.

Goodyear then became CEO and a key legacies, analysts say, is the financial discipline he brought to BHP. He ensured it grew fast enough to capitalise on the commodities boom while avoiding the ill-conceived spending of the past; and all the while, returning cash to shareholders.

Shortly after he took charge as CEO, it was announced that BHP would increase its capital management programme by more than four times to US$13bn, beginning with a US$2.5bn off-market return in Australia.

With the Singapore government tapping the reserves, someone with a track record of returning cash to shareholders while growing the portfolio is needed.